Frequently Asked Questions on Cooking Technologies
Why are you still disseminating the same old stoves?<o:p></o:p>
The same old stoves are not being disseminated. Like most technologies, stoves are continually being improved. During the last twenty-five years modern woodfuel stoves have been developed to match people’s needs, aspirations and economic capacity. Although contrained to some extent by the need to use the same low-cost materials, new designs are making substantial inroads into solving many of the old problems such as indoor air pollution and low overall efficiency. Modern stove reduce harmful emissions, improving the health of the family. Improved biomass stoves save between 40% and 80% of fuel, which reduces the workload of women who need to collect fuel.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Clean renewable fuels are becoming available to many (including ethanol and plant oils), and stoves to burn such fuels have been developed.
<o:p></o:p>
Often in the past it was not the technology, but rather accessing it, that was the problem. Ways to provide access to all these technologies are now available. By working with communities rather than for them, and addressing issues around capital cost, many of the problems of lack of uptake are now in the past. Through these new stoves, technical skills are passed on and income is created. All this helps to improve the quality of everyday life.
<o:p> </o:p>
Are improved stoves really saving that much?<o:p></o:p>
That depends on various factors – the quality of a stove in terms of its technical superiority and the materials used will be important issues. Savings of 50% to 60% per stove per household are realistic, and for institutional stoves savings as high as 80% have been measured, where they have been used correctly. <o:p></o:p>
What is less well known is how often the stove is used, and whether it is being used correctly. This is why it is necessary to provide support to the consumer so that, with good sense, they will use it properly. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Looking at the economics, for example Uganda, it was shown that savings are possible for households and the country’s economy, through reductions in fuelwood use, time spent, ill-health, and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). At the same time, stove producers earned an improved income, so that advantages of efficient stoves were quickly evident and understood by all. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
How can a whole country be reached?<o:p></o:p>
An important activity is to promote the interest and buy-in of local and national decision makers. If they are aware of the benefits, they are more likely to provide financial and strategic support. They can help to upgrade a country’s technical and entrepreneurial skills. They may have resources to implement proven dissemination strategies to increase the manufacture and marketing of stoves at national level, leading to a sustainable stoves market over much of the country. <o:p></o:p>
To reach large sectors of the population, a collaborative approach is needed. This needs to be well supported financially, and should incorporate local NGOs, the private sector, the government (creating a positive political climate), and expert professionals from national and international development organizations. At this point a self-sustaining process can successfully be initiated.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Why not subsidize the stoves and supply whole countries and regions in one go?<o:p></o:p>
There are indeed valid arguments in favour of subsidies to speed up dissemination – after all, almost all modern fuels were subsidized in the beginning – but there are also important arguments against it. Perhaps the most important is that subsidies expire after a while and there is a danger that the whole system will break down – this has been experienced in several countries. Since we are concerned here with a continuous supply of improved stoves, it is important to develop sustainable market mechanisms. For this to happen, demand and supply should balance each other. Initial subsidies are important, but they should be provided primarily for promotion, training of producers, and certification or quality control, while the product (the stove), should be made available through the market.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If the stoves really are that beneficial, why do they not spread spontaneously?<o:p></o:p>
When people have very little money – which is the case for the lower income groups in most developing countries – the scarce financial resources are used to satisfy other, more pressing needs, such as buying food, clothes, medicine or paying school fees. If people are unaware of the serious health risks, and of ways to purchase a stove using credit, the purchase of an improved stove is not a top priority. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Why is acceptance of these new technologies so difficult?<o:p></o:p>
Many energy-efficient stoves require a change in behaviour for communities who have been using a three-stone fire for many, many generations. This adaptation takes time. Cooking is a very personal activity that is carried out, like a number of other domestic activities, almost subconsciously, since it has been learned from an early age. The users will only change their customs if they have experienced many advantages of the new technology over a period of time.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Do modern stoves not destroy cultural traditions? <o:p></o:p>
It is indeed true that the use of new, energy-efficient stoves often means changing age-old cooking traditions. People will only get used to the new ways and integrate these into their socio-cultural organisation if they see the benefits, particularly for their children. However, people are ready to adapt established traditions to use the new technologies if the new products have been adapted to meet their needs, and if their advantages are convincing,. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
How long do the new stoves last?<o:p></o:p>
It depends on the build quality of the stove, the materials used, and whether people care for them. They will be looked after if they are valued by the users, and if they have been well introduced. The lifetime of certain types of stoves can vary between six months to six or more years. Generally stoves should last more than two years, otherwise they will break before people are used to them, and they may not be replaced. More expensive stoves that last longer are often cheaper over their lifetimes than cheaper ones, but people may not have the up-front capital to buy them without some form of soft loan or revolving finance.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Is fuelwood a renewable energy source? <o:p></o:p>
Fuelwood is a renewable energy source only if as much wood is harvested as is grown, or forests that have been cut are replanted. It is important, therefore, that in addition to energy saving, planting new tree stocks plays a role in the energy scenario.A further requirement is that the fuel burns very cleanly, as the polluting products, such as smoke particles and the volatiles given off by the wood, are responsible for much more global warming than the carbon dioxide created if the wood is completely (and thus cleanly) burnt. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Could not solar cookers save the world? <o:p></o:p>
Not on their own - but they are a useful addition. Even where the sun shines for many hours, they are only useful under some circumstances, where there is a wealth of positive experience about the use of solar cookers in certain regions of the world. The most successful use of solar cookers has been experienced in regions where there is lots of sunshine, the air clear, and where there are hardly any other alternatives. In these situations, where the style of cooking is well suited to solar, and where there are no cultural restrictions, solar can be very effective. In other cultures, the traditional food cannot be cooked, people do not have a safe place outdoors to cook their food, the tradition may be for indoor cooking, they may want to cook at night, and they may have sufficient woodfuel. In these situations, the change in culture is too great for it to be a success.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Isn’t the smoke in the huts needed to drive out the mosquitos? <o:p></o:p>
This is only marginally effective. For women and children it is much more important that they can protect themselves from the harmful health effects of indoor air pollution. This has been widely studied. Smoke is responsible worldwide for nearly one million deaths annually of children under five years. There are better ways to deal with mosquitos. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
An improved stove emanates little light and warmth<o:p></o:p>
This is partly true and often has been a reason why efficient stoves were not immediately accepted. Only after the women have been convinced that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages are the stoves accepted and regularly used. Here are better ways to provide heat and light. Insulating houses is useful, and saves fuel. There are well-designed lamps that run on a variety of fuels. Where it is usually cold, some stoves that are made of metal give out a lot of heat – but they tend to use quite a lot of fuel, and give out heat even when it is not needed. Additional metal stoves just for heating are used in some regions.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The three-stone-fire cannot be beaten<o:p></o:p>
A well-tended 3-stone-fire has indeed a number of advantages: It gives warmth and light and provides a sense of comfort. It fits all pot sizes and the heat from the fire can quickly be increased or reduced, the wood does not have to be cut into small pieces – thus it requires less work input. Because the 3-stone fire is traditionally the heart of the household it is often culturally revered. All these advantages affect the degree of acceptance, and people need to have the choice. An improved stove has to have these qualities, it should be cleaner, use less fuel, save money, be safer for the children, and meet other requirements determined by each community. To measure levels of acceptance, one can monitor whether a household still uses an existing 3-stone-fire or uses the newly installed improved stove. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Aren’t there more important issues than stoves?<o:p></o:p>
This can be partially true for example, when dealing with a famine, a drought, or a pandemic, which would take priority over improved cooking stoves. Generally speaking, household energy is a central area of life, with a direct influence on the well-being of human beings and, as such, on the development of society. It has been shown that with only moderate input, widespread impacts that especially benefit women, and thus the whole family, are achieved. People have the right to decide what is important for them. If they realise the serious health risks of smoke, and the options available that will give them more time, money, and improved health, they may wish to make cooking stoves more of a priority.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Does it make sense to continue supporting wood stoves instead of changing to gas and other modern energies? <o:p></o:p>
In developing countries, the number of people using biomass is around 2.5 billion. Although most people would prefer to change to so called ’modern’ energies like gas or electricity, they cannot afford to do so, either because they currently gather fuel ‘for free’, or because the stove is too expensive. In some places, particularly rural districts, ‘modern’ fuels may not be available. Only those on higher incomes can afford them, even where clean fuels are subsidised. <o:p></o:p>
The number of people worldwide using biomass is expected to rise until 2030, with a growing low-income population still dependent on wood, charcoal and other biomass fuels for cooking, baking, heating and small enterprise. More recent calculations have shown that if, by 2015 (the date set for the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals) half the world population was to have access to modern fuels (including energy-efficient stoves), every day 100 000 new families would have to be supplied with them.
